ED Forums - View Single Post - 2016 Hardware Benchmark - DCS World 1.5.x
View Single Post
Old 12-31-2015, 03:26 PM   #2
tiborrr
Junior Member
 
tiborrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 28
Default

5. Testing results

5.1.
CPU core count impact on FPS
The purpose of this test is to test out the impact of the CPU core count on the general FPS performance. The core count tested covers most of the currently available CPUs. Single core performance is added for reference.

HW setup configuration for this test:
- CPU: Intel Core i7 5820K @ 4GHz core / 3.3GHz uncore
- MB: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac
- RAM: 2x8GB DDR4-3200 C16 18-18-36 1T
- GPU: AMD Radeon R9 Nano (+25% power target)
- Drive: 2x 256GB Crucial BX100 @ RAID0
- OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
- Cooling: EKWB custom loop liquid cooling (GPU, CPU)

Game settings:
Spoiler:


Results:







CPU core count impact result analysis:
- Please allow for +/- 2% result accuracy. The overlapping graphs peak/dips are always a good sign of a reliable data aquisition.
- CPU core count effect lessens after 4 cores. It appears the performance peak is reached when utilizing 4 cores. Utilizing more than 4 cores gains to further performance boost
- Average time for the simulation when FPS is lower than 60, varies greatly even though the average FPS appears to be high for smooth gameplay when running the game on a single thread (core).


5.2.
CPU core frequency impact on FPS
The purpose of this test is to test out the impact of the CPU core frequency on the general FPS performance. The frequencies tested range from 2.5- to 4.5GHz, which should cover the sprectrum from the higher-end notebooks to decently overclocked desktop CPU.

HW setup configuration for this test:
- CPU: Intel Core i7 5820K @ 2.5-4.5GHz core / 3.0-3.3GHz uncore
- MB: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac
- RAM: 2x8GB DDR4-3200 C16 18-18-36 1T
- GPU: AMD Radeon R9 Nano (+25% power target)
- Drive: 2x 256GB Crucial BX100 @ RAID0
- OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
- Cooling: EKWB custom loop liquid cooling (GPU, CPU)

Game settings:
Spoiler:


Results:






CPU Frequency Impact result analysis:
- Please allow for +/- 2% result accuracy. The overlapping graphs peak/dips are always a good sign of a reliable data aquisition.
- Performance of the DCS still greatly rely on the CPU frequency and scales almost linearly.
- Overclocking proves beneficial and seems to be the great choice to enhance performance of the system w/o additional costs (providing that your cooling system can handle it)
- 2.5GHz 'underclock' simulates a higher-end mobile CPU performance (i.e. Haswell or Skylake QH CPU).

5.3 CPU architecture impact on the FPS:
The purpose of this test is to test out the impact of the different CPU architecture on the general FPS performance. I have selected the FHD resolution as a starting point, which is in my books considered a 'low' resolution. CPU tests are always done on 'low' resolutions to exclude the possible GPU bottleneck.

This was one of the most time consuming tests which I don't want to repeat ever again.

I hadn't had the chance to test FX 8350 yet, but hopefully I will be able to do so in the upcoming weeks. I guess it will do around ~ 65FPS on average.

Test systems:
- CPU: (as listed before)
- MB:
  • Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7
  • Gigabyte F2A88XN Wifi
  • ASUS ROG Maximus IV Gene-Z
  • ASRock Z77-Extreme4
  • ASUS ROG Maximus VII Gene
  • MSI B150 Gaming Night Elf
  • ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Extreme
- RAM:
  • 4x4GB DDR3-2133 C10 12-12-28 1T @ 1.35V
  • 2x8GB DDR4-2800 CL15 16-16-34 1T
  • 2x8GB DDR4-2133 CL15 15-15-31 2T
- GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 970 Gaming 4G
- Drive: 128GB Crucial BX100
- OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
- Cooling: factory cooling on CPU; factory cooling on GPUs
- Monitor: Dell 2713HM
- Drivers: Nvidia 361.43


Game settings (expect for the resolution which is 1920x1080 FHD):
Spoiler:


Final results are as following:





GPU Architecture Impact result analysis:

- Please allow for +/- 2% result accuracy. The overlapping graphs peak/dips are always a good sign of a reliable data aquisition.
- Please note that Core i5 6600 setup was running on a non-overclockable B150 motherboard, thus memory ran at DDR4-2133 CL15 15-15-31 2T. Just by running it on a Z170 motherboard and cranking up the memory speed we would see up to 10FPS boost.
- Please note that Core i7 6700K setup was running using DDR4-2800 CL15 16-16-34 1T memory settings.
- Core i7 6700K stock clock is 4GHz, hence the same results for non-OC and OC test
- Broadwell with it's 128MB L4 seem to offer nice boost compared to Haswell. When set to 4GHz (which this sample did with factory voltage) it even surpases Skylake.


5.4. DRAM frequency impact on FPS
The purpose of this test is to test out the impact of the DRAM frequency on the general FPS performance. The frequencies tested ranged from DDR4-2133 to -3200, which should cover the majority of available memory kits.

HW setup configuration for this test:
- CPU: Intel Core i7 5820K @ 4.0GHz core / 3.3GHz uncore
- MB: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac
- RAM: 2x8GB DDR4 (2133 - 3200)
- GPU: AMD Radeon R9 Nano (+25% power target)
- Drive: 2x 256GB Crucial BX100 @ RAID0
- OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
- Cooling: EKWB custom loop liquid cooling (GPU, CPU)

Game settings:
Spoiler:


Results:







DRAM Frequency Impact result analysis:
- Please allow for +/- 2% result accuracy. The overlapping graphs peak/dips are always a good sign of a reliable data aquisition.
- DRAM frequency has a bigger impact on performance than anticipated but still far less than CPU core count or - more importantly - CPU frequency.
- A somewhat big performance gain is obtained when choosing DDR4-2400 memory over DDR4-2133.
- Faster memory (or memory overclocking) should always be considered as long as the price of the faster bin is reasonable.


5.5. Display resolution impact on FPS
The purpose of this test is to test out the impact of the display resolution on the general FPS performance. The display resolutions tested ranged from FHD to 4K, which should cover the sprectrum from the entry-level PC screens to latest 4K displays. I did a brief study with Radeon R9 Nano on my setup to see if what is to be expected when pushing GPUs to draw 8+ megapixels.

HW setup:
- CPU: Intel Core i7 5820K @ 4.0GHz core / 3.3GHz uncore
- MB: ASRock X99E-ITX/ac
- RAM: 2x8GB DDR4-3200 C16 18-18-36 1T
- GPU: AMD Radeon R9 Nano (+25% power target)
- Drive: 2x 256GB Crucial BX100 @ RAID0
- OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
- Cooling: EKWB custom loop liquid cooling (GPU, CPU)

HW setup configuration for this test:
- Same as above, just tested out on three different resolutions: 1920x1080 (FHD); 2560x1440 (WQHD); 3840x2160 (UHD a.k.a. 4K).

Results:








Display Resolution Impact result analysis:
- Please allow for +/- 2% result accuracy. The overlapping graphs peak/dips are always a good sign of a reliable data aquisition.
- Somewhat expected result for a high-end GPU, the R9 Nano (and alikes) really start to shine only at higher resolution. It is an total overkill for the FHD. This GPU (and alikes) is strong enough to drive single 4K monitor resolution with ease.

Last edited by tiborrr; 02-06-2016 at 11:50 AM.
tiborrr is offline   Reply With Quote